Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 I TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 11, 1995 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS TO AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS; LANDS OF MATHIASON; 13850 PASEO DEL ROBLE. FROM: Suzanne Davis,Planner 5D APPROVED BY: Curtis S.Williams,Planning Director RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit, subject to the recommended conditions. BACKGROUND The property is located on the south side of Paseo Del Roble, at the corner of Page Mill Road. The property was created as part of a 41 lot subdivision (Tract 5098 - Matadero Oaks) which was recorded in December 1973. There is a conservation easement over the east end of the property. There is also a 10 foot wide public utility easement along the Page Mill Road and Paseo Del Roble frontages. CODE REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Ordinance, the proposed project has been referred to the Planning Commission for review as it indudes additions exceeding 900 square feet,and the height will exceed 15 feet. DISCUSSION Site Data: Net Lot Area: 2.8 acres Average Slope: 38.6% Lot Unit Factor: 1.08 Floor Area and Development Area: Area Max. Prop. Exist. Incrs. Left Devel. 8,100 11,381 11,513 -112 -3,281 Floor 5,400 5,394 4,477 +917 +6 Planning Comrriission October 11, 199 Lands of Mathison Page 2 Architecture &Site The applicants are requesting approval of a Site Development Permit for a major addition and remodel of an existing residence. Landscape improvements are also proposed 4s part of the project. The house is presently two stories with a three-car garage. Proposed additions total 1,019 square feet. A sunroom is to be added near the southeast corner with a second addition,proposed at the west end of the house. A new retaining wall will be constructed around the southwest corner of the h Luse. A portion of this retaining wall will be the west side of the house. An existing guest house and most of the wood decking will remain on the site and a new wood deck will be built. Wood railings'will be also added to the steps and decks to provide better accessibility for Mrs. Mathiason. Since the site is already developed beyond the allowable MDA, some existing development area will be renovedto offset the development area to be'added. The removal of a play area,playhouse and some pavement from the driveway will result in a net reduction in the development area of 112 square feet. The height of the existing residence is 35 feet as measured from lowest to highest point and 27 feet from the existing grade at the highest point. The highest point of the west side addition will be 23 feet as measured from existing grade. The additions would bring the total floor area to just under the allowable 5,400 square feet. A condition of approval has been included requiring a recorded restriction stating that with this approval the property is developed to the maximum allowable levels currently allowed by the Town. The recorded restriction will unsure that this information is passed on to any future purchaser of the property. The existing hose is wood siding and trim with a wood shake roof. Proposed exterior materials include vertical wood siding and wood trim to match the existing, and a new fire retardant roof. The likely roofing;material is lightweight concrete shingle in a brown tone, although the applicants have not made a final decision. The a chitect has designed the additions to incorporate well with the existing design. The applicants have not specified whether the exterior colors will be changed Staff has included a condition of approval requiring approval of the exterior colors in conformance with the Town's adopted color board if the existing color is not kept. ii Trees &Landscaping There are numeious heritage oaks on the site. None of;the oaks will be affected by the project. The applicantsare planning to plant a number of trees including three 48-inch box oaks. Existing trees and shrubs provide good screening of the site from neighbors to the south and west. The house is visible from Paseo Del Roble and Page Mill Road (l{eading up). The new landscaping is more than adequate for mitigation screning. As noted on the plans, any areas that are Planning Commission October 11, 1995 Lands of Mathiason Page 3 � disturbed during construction will either be planted or hydroseeded to prevent problems with erosion. Parking &Driveway There is presently a circular driveway on the site. The driveway, parking and turnaround area will not be changed except that a small portion of the driveway at the right entry will be removed as noted above. The required four parking spaces are provided in the three-car garage, and there is a fourth space in the circular driveway. Plan Review Comments The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of approval, as specified in Attachment 1. Minimal grading will be necessary for the project (29 cubic yards of cut and 23 cubic yards of fill). Final drainage will be reviewed by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected,prior to final inspection. The Town geotechnical consultant, William Cotton & Associates, has reviewed several geotechnical reports and the development plans and has visited the site. The applicant's geotechnical consultant noted that there is an apparent old landslide upslope, southwest of the hous . The Town Geologist cautions that the applicants should be aware of the potential for slope instability within the swale area, and that if any movement is detected in this area in the future, it should be inspected by a qualified geologist. The Town Geologist also noted that the project consultant has recommended appropriate design criteria for the additions based on available information (see Attachment 3). Condition #9 includes the recommendations of the Town Geologist. The Pathways Committee has requested that a Type IIB path be installed around the corner of Paseo Del Roble and Page Mill Road (see Attachment 4). The proposed location would have a guy wire across the path which is a potentially dangerous situation. Staff has written the condition of approval to specify that the exact path location be determined in the field. The Engineering Department and the Pathway Committee can work with the applicant to locate a path which will not be in conflict with the overhead wire. No comments were received from the Environmental Design & Protection Committee. Staff is available to answer any questions from the Commission or any member of the community. Planning Commission October 11, 1995 Lands of Mathison Page 4 , ! ATTACHMENTS: ! ' 1. Recomm nded Conditions of Approval 2. Letter from William C 9 tton& Associates, dated June 27, 1995, 1995 (three pages) ' { 3. Letter from William Cotton & Associates, dated September 29, 1995 (two pages) 4. Pathway Committee tiecommendation(three page's) 5. Workshet#2 6. Development plans: topography survey, site plans, planting plan, floor plans,el vations and roof plan(ten sheets) cc: Gary& Karla Mathias n 13850 Paeeo Del Roble Los Alto Hills,CA 94022 Tamara Kron Abextra 106 106 West Campbell Av nue Campbell,CA 95008 David Br tt Britt-Rowe 16400 Englewood Avenue Los Gatos,CA 95032 i ! Planning Commission October 11, 1995 Lands of Mathiason Page 5 i ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MAJOR ADDITION&REMODEL AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS LANDS OF MATHIASON- 13850 PASEO DEL ROBLE A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. Any outdoor lighting requires approval by the Planning Department prior to instalation. Lighting specifications shall be submitted for Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, if such plans will indicate electrical installation to support new lighting. Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the lighting shall not be visible from off the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights. 3. Prior to beginning any grading operation or construction, any significant trees in the area of construction (excluding those to be removed) shall be fenced at the dripline. The fencing shall be of a material and structure to clearly delineate the dripline. Town staff must inspect the fencing arld the trees to be fenced prior to issuance of any building permits. The fence must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment,vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the driplines of these trees. 4. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting may be placed within the skylight wells. 5. Exterior paint colors, if changed, shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in conformance with the Town's adopted color board, and shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less. White trim area shall be minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, columns, railings and trellises. Color samples shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to painting the exterior of the residence. All structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s) prior to final inspection. Planning Commission i October 11, 1995 i Lands of Mathiason Page 6 6. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new roof. 7. A deed restriction shall be recorded stating that the floor and development areas established by the approval of these permits are the maximum allowable levels of development currently allowed by the Town, and that any further expansion requires Town approval. The recorded restriction will be prepared by the P1aanning Department and shall be signed and notarized by the property owners prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 8. Atl the time of foundation inspection for the house and prior to final inspection for grading and hardscape improvements, the location, and elevation of the new residence, hardscape and driveway shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved location, and elevation shown on the approved site development plan. At the time of framing, the height of the structures shall be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved site development plan. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 9. As recommended by William Cotton & Associates in their report dated September 29, 1995, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The project geotechnical consultant shall review all geotechnical aspects of the construction drawings and shall summarize the results in a letter which shall be submitted to the Town Engineering Department for approval, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. The project geotechnical consultant shall describe the results of inspections and as-built conditions of the project in a letter to be submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to final inspection. For further details on the above requirements, please reference the letter from William Cotton&Associates dated September 29, 1995. 10. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed ads surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration or the runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any Planning Commission October 11, 1995 Lands of Mathiason Page 7 deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. 11. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium between November 1 and April 1 except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow access to Paseo Del Roble and for the removal of the existing paving adjacent to the right of way. 12. Any, and all, new public utility services serving this property shall be undergrounded. 13. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 14. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property Plowner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Paseo Del Roble, Page Mill Road and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles; and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 15. The property owner shall ,inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of Planning Commission October 11, 1995 Lands of Mathiason Page 8 the roadwas and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plancheck. 16. A (Type IIB path shall be installed around the corner of Page Mill Rdad and Paseo Del Roble. The location of the path shall be decided on innthe field, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department a d the Pathway Committee, prior to issuance of building permits. The path shall be installed to the satisfaction of the E igineering Department,prior to final inspection. Upon completion of construction,a final inspection shall be set with the Planning Department and Engin ening Department at least two weeks prior to final inspection. CONDITION NUMBERS 2, 7, 9, 13, 14 AND 15 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. ALL OTHER CONDITIONS 7UST BE S TISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION. PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THE LOCATION OF THE PATHWAY SHALL BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. Properties resi ing within the Los Altos School District boundaries must pay School District fees before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet#2 to both the elementary and high school district effices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until Octoper 11, 1996). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work o items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. • GEOTECHNICAL COP"LTANTS *. William Co',..on 330 Village Lane( Los Gatos, California 95030 and Associates (408) 354-5542 June 27, 1995 RECEIVED L3115 JUN 2 8 1995 TO : Suzanne Davis TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT : Supplemental Geotechnical Review RE : Mathiason Additions, 13850 Paseo Del Roble File #58-95-ZP-SD-GD At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the permit applications for proposed addition cori'struction using: • Floor Plans, Site plan, and Elevations (10 sheets, various scales) prepared by Britt Rowe, dated January 15, 1995; • Landscape Plan (Sheet L2, 20-scale) prepared by KRON, dated May 8, 1995; • Engineering geologic Investigation (report) prepared by Baker-CEG, dated December 27, 1993; • Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by PGSoils, dated December 29, 1993; and • Comments on Geotechnical Investigation Report (letter) prepared by PGSoils, Inc., dated May 5, 1994. In addition,we have reviewed pertinent documents from our office files regarding Mathiason, L3283. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to construct additions onto the west, southwest and southeastern portions of the existing residence. In our previous review report (dated May 19, 1994), we evaluated a proposed 'addition to the western portion of the residence and recommended that specific structural and geotechnical plan reviews be satisfactorily completed prior to issuance of building permits. Because the footprint of proposed additions have been significantly enlarged since our previous review, additional geologic and geotechnical evaluations must be completed to address the revised sites of, proposed construction. The previous, referenced Engineering Geologic Investigation (report) was specifically limited to an evaluation of the previous western addition and as stated by the consultant, was "not intended to address the implications of the geologic conditions on any portion of the subject property other than the site of the proposed addition and the slope directly above it". The previous Geotechnical Investigation (report) was also focused on ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • Suzanne Davis June 27, 1995 Page 2 L3115 foundation design requirements for the western addition and additional subsurface investigation may be necessary as a basis for developing design recommendations for the expanded addition footprint area. SITE CONDITIONS The portion of the proposed addition to be attached to the southwestern corner of the residence is located directly below the axis of a steep swale with a probable thick accumulation of colluvium. A lobate geomorphic feature, consistent in form with the lower portion (toe of a landslide mass, was observed approximately 50 feet south of the existing playhouse within the swale. Upper reaches of the swale are hummocky suggesting active creep and possible previous landsliding. General site conditions have been summarized in our previous review reports. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Supplemental geologic and geotechnical evaluations should be completed to address the feasibility and necessary design measures for the proposed additions. The potential for landsliding to adversely impact the proposed improvements should be specifically evaluated by the project engineering geologist. The referenced Landscape Plan illustrates several proposed walls, including Keystone type walls and terraced retaining walls. In our experience, Keystone type walls may not be appropriate for support of very steep native slopes (without extensive grading and geotextile reinforcement), such as are present between the existing guesthouse and playhouse. Appropriate design criteria should be recommended by the project geotechnical consultant for all proposed retaining walls. A proposed site grading and drainage plan, certified by a Registered Civil Engineer, should be prepared which includes information to clarify the heights of all proposed walls. Consequently, we recommend that the following conditions be satisfactorily addressed prior to geotechnical approval of the proposed project design: 1. Site Grading and Drainage Plan - A proposed site grading and drainage plan, certified by a Registered Civil Engineer, should be prepared illustrating existing and final grades, necessary drainage improv ements and the top and base elevations of all proposed retaining walls. 2. Supplemental Geologic Evaluations - The project Engineering Geologist should review the currently proposed development plan and perform necessary site evaluations to address potential geologic hazards to the proposed additions. The potential for landslide failure to adversely impact proposed improvements should be specifically evaluated. Conceptual mitigation measures should be presented as deemed appropriate for site conditions. 3. Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations - The project Geotechnical) Engineer should review results of the supplemental geologic evaluations, the proposed development plan, and perform supplemental site investigation (as deemed necessary). The consultant should develop an adequate basis for preparation of supplemental geotechnical criteria for foundations and retaining walls. Specific geotechnical parameters, necessary for Keystone wall design, should be included if Keystone walls are to be constructed as part of the project. William Cotton and Associates Suzanne Davis June 27, 1995 Page 3 L3115 The site grading and drainage plan, and results of the geologic and geotechnical evaluations should be submitted to the Town for review by the Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant,prior to approval of the proposed development plan. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT OSL/Le_C Patrick O. Shires Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 770 Ted Sayr-a Senior Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 POS:TS:rb William Cotton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CON°",TANTS William Coi,t.on 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, California 95030 and Associates (408) 354-5542 September 29, 1995 L 115A TO : Suzanne Davis • v,-�,. Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 , ; / SUBJECT : Supplemental Geotechnical Review �s��< RE : Mathiason Additions, 13850 Paseo Del Roble File #58-95-ZP-SD-GD At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the permit applications for proposed construction using: • Grading and Drainage Plan (1 sheet, 10-scale) certified by David Readler, dated September 1995; • Planting Plan (Sheet L2, 20-scale) prepared by KRON, dated August 18, 1995; and • Supplemental Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation (report) prepared by PGSoils and Baker-CEG, dated August 31, 1995. In addition,we have reviewed pertinent documents from our office files regarding Mathiason, L3283. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to construct additions onto the west, southwest and southeastern portions of the existing residence. In our previous review report(dated July 27, 1995), we evaluated proposed additions to the existing residence with a different configuration. We noted that a portion of they proposed additions (i.e., to be attached to the southwestern corner of the residence) was located directly below the axis of a steep swale with a probable thick accumulation of colluvium. A lobate geomorphic feature, consistent in form with the lower portion (toe) of a landslide mass, was observed approximately 50 feet south of the existing playhouse within the swale. We recommended that supplemental geologic and geotechnical engineering evaluations be completed prior to approval of the proposed construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The referenced supplemental report prepared by the project geotechnical consultant, along with the site grading and drainage plan, address all issues of our previous review. The project geotechnical consultant has concluded that an apparent Old Landslide is located in the broad swale to the southwest (upslope) of the residence. It appears that the downslope portion (toe) of this landslide is located approximately 60 feet from the closest proposed residential additions. The project geotechnical consultant points out that some potential exists for future reactivation of this landslide, including the possibility for movement of debris down the axis of the swale toward the proposed addition. In the judgment of the consultant, the site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed additions with utilization of recommended geotechnical design criteria. Recommended mitigation measures to address potential slope instability include special ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Suzanne Davis September 29, 1995 Page 2 L3115A I "free-board" requirements for new retaining walls intended to block and collect debris that may wash down the axis of the swale. The applicant should be fully aware of the potential for future slope instability within the adjacent swale. Detailed characterization and in-depth slope stability analysis of the apparent Old Landslide within the swale have not been completed and would require the cooperation 4 the adjacent upslope property owner. The applicant has the option to pursue such investigation if the current limited understanding of risk associated with this landslide is unacceptable. In our opinion, the mitigation measures recommended to address this area of potential instability represent a reasonable judgment by the project geotechnical consultant based on available data. However, any future instability in this swale noted by the property owner should not be ignored, but should be promptly inspected by a qualified geologist to assess the risk and determine whether additional mitigation measures should be taken. With this understanding, we recommend geotechnical approval of permit applications for proposed construction with the following conditions: 1. Geotechnical Plan Review- The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town engineer for re'riew and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls 11rior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the projea�t shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Sayre Seni Engineering Ge o st Ted ,, Liam . otton Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 882 - WRC:TS:rb William Cotton and Associates ATTACH MERIT MINUTES OF THE LAH PATHWAYS, PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING July 24, 1995 y. NOTES: ▪ Next Pathways Committee meeting is Monday, Aug 28th 7:30 p.m. Town Hall ROLL CALL: Pathways Committee members: Les Earnest, Bob Stutz, Katy Stella, Betty Rooker, Tom Griffiths, Kathy Freeman, Diane Barrager, Sylvia Jensen; Planning Commission: Viole McMahon, Dot Schreiner Guests: David Kahn, Ray Rooker, Barrie Freeman MINUTES: 6/26 minutes questioned and approved as is. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Viole McMahon, as the new chair of the Planning Commission, encourages connection with all and wants us all to be proactive - Les wants to establish pathway standards that codify when to request a path and when not to. Bill Siegel wants to establish legal basis for requesting a path; he feels this basis should be stated in the General Plan. OId Business: - In lieu fees: Tom Griffiths gathered 16 samples of in lieu fees requested in 1994. Next, the town average cost for building will now be established. Using this info, Les and Tom will put together a memo stating their recommendation about in lieu fees. Pathways unanimously recommends that all in lieu fees go to the Pathways budget only. - Altamont equestrian/pedestrian crossing: In July Les wrote a memo to the Town Council stating recommendations for alleviating the safety hazard of crossing Altamont between Lands of Packaird Jr. and the Lands of Horton. Bob Stutz recommends linking such a crossing location to a line of site ccnsideration. - 12080 La Loma Drive - Lands of Powers: Pathways recommends a II-B path be restored along Green Hills Court, including a path around the mailbox. Also, the small pine trees growing in and immediately adjacent to the path she uld be removed. - 24990 La Loma Drive - Lands of McNees: Pathways recommends a H-B path be constructed along La Loma. Also, Path ays recommends acquiring a 10 foot easement along the West edge of the property and a 20 foot easement along the South edge of the property. These easements will permit a future path to be constructed just North of the creek, given that the creek and a steep slope are along the South edge of the property. - 13850 Paseo del Roble - Lands of Matbiason: Pathways recommends a II-B path be constructed around the corner of Paseo del Roble and Page Mill Road, as follows: there is a small tree near the power pole on the corner - it should be trimmed back so it only has branches away from the roads; then construct a path adjacent to Page Mill Road beginning about 45 feet from the corner and going between the power pole and a large oak tree there, then around the small Itree to a point on P seo del Roble that is directly across the street from the pedestrian bridge. - Master Path Plan Update: per Les, hopefully we will get access to computer software that will handle this in ormation. Software is currently being tested. New Business: Town Pathway Mapeprinting: 7/22 Les drew up a draft of corrections, additions, deletions that need to e made to the current Pathways Map. Dot will review them. - 27979 Baker Lane - Lands of Rouse: Pathways recommends that we acquire pathway easements along the noithwest side of the property as follows: a 10 foot easement along the westernmost edge of the property next to Baker Lane (if Baker Lane is a privte road, the, we need a path along !it) and along the adjacent property boundary that runs approximately northeastward; a 20 foot easement adjacent to the next bpundary segment in approximately a north by northwest direction a� d a 10 foot easement along the 'next boundary segment heading northeastward, ending a� the northernmost corner of the property. - 13073 Cumbre Vista - Lands bf Wu: Pathways recommends that the asphalt path along La Barrarica be restored as needed. - Kingsley .Way Parcel A - Micko Subdivision: Pathways ; recommends a II-B path be constructed along Altadena Dive and Kingsley Way. - 13940 La Paloma Road - Reed Subdivision: Pathways ;recommends a II-B path be constructed along La Paloma - 12101 Oak Park Court - Lands of Lohr: Pathways recommends they restore a II-B path along Oak Park Court s needed and that they also construct a II-B path along Stonebroo Drive. - 27435 Natoma soak - Lands of Geers: Pathways recommends they restore the path along Natoma ai needed anthat it be cleared to a ,5' width Presentations from the Flo r: - Ray Rooker spoke bout the pa for. 13826 Moon Lane. On their Aug 5th Saturday walk Pathays subseq ently reviewed this site. - Bob Stutz verified that the De Anza Trail was to come; down Rhus Ridge and not through Hidden Vill . - Kathy Stella state that the path to Hidden Villa on Moody has been fenced off. - Betty Rooker note that several paths behind Bullis have become impassable. - Respectfully submitted: Kathy Freeman LAH FAX: 941 3160 JUL-10-93 MON 09:23 $ ECS/SANCTUARY. 4i 321743 P.02 1 F. RECEIVED TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS h i 51 I �� 11 . ,a o D "c flA * 0/.1/ ,•?-1 _tt._________-- . I I . , 3 /1/ ,. --eis . �, MOW 1 / . / . tr • / B 44i-r- 7o SCAI.— ••. A III ID,‘..a['roma 94022 • (415)941.7222 • PAX 0115) 941-316i1 0 PLANNING DEP ( `-,' .WORKSI EET in EXISTING AND PROPOSED;OEVF,.LOPMENT AREA AND FLOOIZ.AREA i • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • , nRorExzY OWNER'S NAME • PROPERTY ADDRESS � � -t' ,��' t4 /36 0 _ CALCULATED BY 1 • O• jA „ - b 0-/ �•U ------' 1. • Ji� � 0•I DATE ,. (SQUARE FOOTAGE) 5 (Ca/cu1aM &v/pI. tt Existing Proposed Total A. House and Garage (from,Part$ (Additions or Deletion::) B• Decking _ __� C. ... /, (o 52 Z . �o d Ari vew ay and Parking �� .�i 7l0 7:. (Measured 100'along centerline) .:: ?, 9�8 . D, Patios; and Walkways 3, Sb 4- E. Tennis Court — 3 • F. Pool and Decking . G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B)-:::',1011.1.. �. ��• Any ether coverage 0� � ,u�� • •^�jq0 loftier 2a 8 Za _ 1)::10 LW TOTALS // �5 r '0 ' Maximum Development Area Allo5cvpd, - M1)A (from Worksheet #1) 1.. , --11�, .' 2• Qni2 �►R 17 a .(SQL/ARE FOOTAGE) • 'r !��.,, f•P ' Existing Proposed P ; Total.' A. House and Garage (Additions or Deletions) a. 1st Floor 21 0 5 b. 2nd Floor /, l�/°f- .. �.�2__::;1. c. Attic and Basement I B. d. Garage r O Accessory Buildings ( 0 a. 1st Floor . (Pot) - : . A.51-- ... .b 2nd Floor 10 c• Attic and Basement .4. • TOTALS. 44.1.7.. _Ls__9//417 woivMaximum Floor Area Allowed - 44 7 MFA (from Worksheet #1) 40 1 roWN --- USE-.- ON.LY :CHECKED BY •(,(,Z til/1S . -- = 1,••tiseSi 12/09/9a DATE SRL• MAC HD/ORIGINAls/PUNN1NC,rvor ' ' • K,lied�_